Forum

I grew up on v1, so the idea of abandoning it completely is anathema to me. That said, the arrival of v4 (deluxe boxed set appeared on my doorstep yesterday) inspired me to attempt aligning both versions so that one can play v4 in Sweden within the v1 timeline. I'm not sure that a perfect alignment is possible, and I don't claim that this is it, but I think it works well enough. I hope you agree, but if not, please let me know what you think would make it work better.


Northern Front, Winter 1996 - Autumn 1997

By the closing weeks of 1996, the Baltic Sea is essentially a Soviet Lake. Pact Naval forces have been able to sweep the Baltic of NATO naval forces. Only NATO air forces limit PACT freedom of navigation in the Baltic.

To avoid same, Pact naval vessels and aircraft routinely enter Swedish territorial waters. Stockholm protests vociferously via diplomatic channels, to no avail. Incidents occur, shot are exchanged, the PACT gets the worst of it. Tension builds, but Stockholm refuses to order full mobilization of its military forces in order to avoid further provocation.

By Spring 1997, most Soviet Forces have been pushed out of Northern Norway (isolated pockets left behind continue to resist, as best they can). NATO attempts to advance on Murmansk through northern Finland. Finland strongly asserts its neutrality by attacking the NATO spearhead, stopping it cold. Remnants of the Soviet North Sea Fleet destroy a NATO flotilla closing on the Kola Peninsula but suffer crippling losses in turn. Despite its use of force against NATO forces in the north of the country, Finland refuses to ally with the PACT.

Facilitated by tactical nuclear strikes, a summer 1997 land offensive in Poland pushes NATO forces back towards the German border, increasing Pact control of the Baltic by making it more difficult for NATO air forces to operate in the anti-ship/anti-sub capacity there.

Stymied in the far north, the PACT makes a fateful decision to attempt killing two birds with one stone. An invasion of Sweden aimed at capturing Stockholm would knock a troublesome not-really-neutral nation out of the war and allow the Soviets to outflank NATO units holding firm in northern Norway, and/or present a clear and present danger to Oslo.

Mustering its remaining naval and air assets in the region, the PACT launches a large-scale amphibious and airborne invasion- the last of its kind in WWIII- of SE Sweden, preceded by precision nuclear strikes (mostly aimed at destroying the Swedish air force and navy). PACT naval infantry and parachute units land near Stockholm, establishing a beachhead and pushing towards the capital. Reinforcements soon follow (by sea, of course). The Swedish government appeals to NATO for help.

NATO is surprised by this unexpected development, but the alliance immediately susses out the strategic threat to Norway. Preparations for a counterinvasion of Sweden begin.

Meanwhile, the Swedish army rallies and puts up fierce resistance to the Pact advance, buying time for outside assistance to arrive.

---

There you have it. Some ORBAT adjustments are, of course, necessary, but I don't think this would "break" how v1 describes the correlation of forces in other regions.

-

Perhaps some of the Pact tac-nukes could be directed at Swedish coast defenses, to allow the amphibious invasion to succeed?

I don't think anyone would have been in the least bit surprised by a Pact naval invasion of Sweden. It was part of the plan for both sides in most war scenarios. Soviets had significant landing ships, hovercraft, strike aircraft, and other assets assigned to this mission. I forget how many divisions of naval infantry this usually involved, probably two. IIRC, a brigade of Polish marines were also allocated to this task in most planning, at least prior to the fall of the WP.

This is also the reason that the Swedes have a significant technological investment in anti-ship missiles to this day. I have somewhere a Viggen pilot's tactical manual which pretty clearly states they expected all available Viggen squadrons to be flying pretty much around the clock strikes against amphibious groups until they reached max attrition - which was expected to be in about two days.

I'm also not sure I generally see NATO having the resources to push the Soviets out of Norway, let alone a counter-offensive towards the USSR -- but in the sort of stumbling to war presented in the timeline, enough conditions could have changed for that to be the case.

Yes, it's hard to imagine a Soviet amphibious/airborne invasion of Sweden succeeding without first significantly attriting the Swedish air force. This would be quite the challenge for the Soviet military in mid-1997 of the v1 timeline.

The Swedish air force routinely dispersed its combat aircraft, making use of paved roadways as ersatz airstrips. The Viggen and Grippen were designed with STOL capability with this in mind.

If the USSR launched their invasion of Sweden early in the war, when it had a huge numerical advantage in combat aircraft, that would be one thing. But by mid-1997, this advantage would have narrowed to a much tighter margin. The Soviets would be risking losing the remainder of their air forces in NW Europe in a major battle with the pristine Swedish air force.

The only way I can see a Soviet invasion of Sweden working in mid-1997 (I don't see it having a chance at success any later than that) is by catching the Swedes by surprise with a liberal dose of nuclear strikes. The Swedes' doctrine of dispersal of forces would make even nuclear attacks less effective. I see the invaders suffering heavy losses during the landings.

Swedish coastal defenses are nothing to sniff at, but the Soviets would only need to worry about threats in the landing area. Fixed emplacements could be targeted easily. Mobile SSM launchers, IMHO, would be the biggest threat.

-

I can buy that. Sweden has very capable armed forces but it also doesn't have very MANY armed forces. Destruction of even a single Viggen squadron in its bases prior to dispersal, for instance, would represent a pretty significant impact on its fighting capacity in that initial battle (exactly the sort of mission for which Spetsnaz fighting brigades were designed!). Of course there are many actual Swedes around these parts who could probably speak much better to it than I could!

Surprise would be key. Apparently, it would take a few days for the Swedish military and Home Guard to mobilize in the event of an unexpected attack. If the Soviets could disrupt that further, it would buy time for their beachheads and airheads to consolidate. A nuclear attack, even using relatively small yield tactical warheads, would definitely add to panic and confusion and slow deployment. In v4, the Swedish government quits Stockholm pretty early on. The proven threat of a nuclear decapitation strike would definitely accomplish that.

I've been considering how best to employ Spetsnaz in the opening phase of the invasion. If a Spetsnaz team could somehow keep a Viggen squadron from getting off the ground and seize control of the airbase where it's stationed, that would be ideal (from a Soviet POV). An intact airfield would help speed up landings and even allow the Soviets to station their own combat aircraft and helis in-country.

Using Spetsnaz always risks throwing away the element of surprise if they're detected prior to taking action (remember the traffic accident in Red Storm Rising?). Trying to accomplish too much by dispersing a team or trying to insert more than one or two prior to the invasion increases the odds of tipping off the defenders that something bigger is afoot. Can anyone think of a better use for Spetsnaz than seizing an airfield? An alternative that comes immediately to mind is attempting to assassinate the civilian leadership of the country, but if said is fleeing the capital in the wake of nuclear strikes, that seems almost redundant.

Gotland was pretty well defended during the Cold War. Do you think the Soviets would try to seize it in the opening phase of the invasion, perhaps to use as a kind of springboard for further attacks on the mainland, and to defend the left "flank" of invasion sea lanes, or would they circumvent it and leave it to wither on the vine? It seems like v4 takes the latter approach given the geographical description/rumor. I tend to think that the Soviets wouldn't want to disperse their manpower, so it makes a bit more sense operationally to leave it be, initially at least, or even nuke the base there and then mop up the survivors at a later date.

-

The traditional missions for Spetsnaz in WW3 planning were decapitation strikes against leadership in military HQs, hits against rear-area logistics sites, and especially in Germany the targeting of Pershing missiles in particular. Coastal missile batteries seem like another good target, if they can be located.

I don't think you could expect Spetsnaz to secure an airfield for any period of time. If they were able to temporarily disable the airstrip, disrupt C&C, or blow up a bunch of planes on the ground I think that would all be considered a success. Trying to hold it until the marines get there? That'd be an airborne regiment's job and I suspect few of those would be allocated to Sweden.

Also Spetsnaz was supposed to infiltrate and position before conflict started so as to strike by surprise at targets with a peacetime level of security. If the war had been ongoing then Sweden would have mobilised it's forces, dispersed where possible, and greatly increased security to prevent either decapitation nuclear strikes or SF raids.

So you can assume that the Soviet forces would be attacking an alert and prepared opponent who would therefore inflict heavy losses.

Yeah, I guess that's the part that doesn't make sense. If Norway has already been invaded and the war is ongoing elsewhere, the Swedes are going to be on a war preparedness footing already.

Re preparedness, true. It's highly unlikely that Sweden would be caught napping. That said, if Sweden's attention were focused elsewhere...

v1 has fighting in northern Norway and then NATO attempts to push into Soviet territory through Finland. The Finns use military force to repel this violation of their sovereign territory. I imagine that Sweden's active duty, regular military is mostly oriented north, since that's where the fighting is taking place, and that's where the greatest chance of clashes with Soviet troops would be. I imagine that quite a few Soviet troops attempting to escape encirclement by NATO in NE Norway would cross the border into neutral Sweden, seeking refuge. The occasional firefight brought about by misidentification, frayed nerves, unheeding warnings, etc. wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility. As a result, Sweden's military focus would be on the northwest, leaving ground forces in the SE spread thin by comparison.

In the timeline I shared, I mentioned that Sweden holds off on full mobilization of its military since calling up the reserves would likely be viewed by Moscow as a provocation. There's historical precedence for this sort of passive stance in the face of saber rattling from a neighboring rival during wartime. In WW2, despite numerous warnings from his foreign intelligence service and border outposts, Stalin refused to increase Soviet military readiness or strengthen frontier defenses so as not to provoke Hitler. Obviously, this was a huge error in judgment.

So that's the best explanation I can offer. Sweden chooses not to fully mobilize it's military so as to avoid provoking the Soviets. At the same time, Sweden's strongest ground forces are in the north, keeping a close eye on the fighting going on in neighboring Norway/Finland. This force orientation leaves Swedish intel preoccupied with events in the north and the SE of the country thinly-manned. This provides opportunity for the Soviets.

-